Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

courteaudotbiz writes "In a court battle in the province of Quebec, Canada, initiated more than two years ago, free software activists Savoir Faire Linux (translated 'Linux know-how') won the right to submit offers (Google translation; original French version) when the government takes public requests for submissions to replace its desktop operating systems and office suites. This opens the possibility in the future of replacing Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office in favor of Linux and OpenOffice.org, or any other operating system and office productivity suite. In his judgment, the magistrate said that the government acted illegally when it discarded the proposal of Savoir Faire Linux for replacing Windows XP with a Linux distribution."

It's always like that , and that's one reason why this decision is important - it means, at least in Quebec, that there's no more of this "it's just an upgrade" BS.

From what I read in the original french, the judge wasn't buying any of the gov't arguments. To paraphrase, if buying new computers with Vista on them is just an "upgrade", then everything becomes "just an upgrade" and there's no reason for ever calling for public tenders. (Those new police cars are "just an upgrade - no need for tenders").

The problem is that Windows boxes are a continuing cash cow because of their higher on-going support needs, so of course people are going to push Windows. They aren't tech-savvy, they just know how to push the boxes, maintain the anti-virus subscriptions, which icons to click to set up the network, and how to reformat.

The difference between getting a new compute with Vista on it VS. getting a new computer with Redhat on it, is that for the most part, all the old software will continue to run, and you won't have to retrain all your old staff. If you need to upgrade all the computers in the department, you can't choose Linux, because it will mean rewiting a bunch of internal VBA / IE6 ActiveX apps, and getting a whole bunch of new software and training on that software even for all the COTS software you use, if it exists

The president of which you speak has been dead for 40 years, and de Gaulle had been making it a habit to piss off friends and allies since WWII, when Churchill could have throttled him a number of times for his big mouth.

Actually, it was quite insulting for the President of France to come to Canada and state that Quebec should be free (independent). We haven't quite forgiven him for interfering in our internal politics while in the position of honoured guest.

Who's "we"? The rest of Canada? Quebec Federalists? I'll remind you that during the last referendum on separation the vote was very close to 50/50.

After all, it was France that abandoned Quebec to British rule,

Then that should have insulted the separatists rather than the federalists. Somehow, I doubt that many separatists were insulted.

Read the article in the original french. The judge made it quite clear that what the government did was illegal. Not just "illegal", but totally illegal, and that they tried to cover it up after-the-fact.

And F/LOSS is political. Using F/LOSS is as much a political statement as it is an economic statement - that it's our computers, our data, and we have a right to see the source, to use open formats, to modify it the way we want, and no private corporation should be able to lock us out.

It means that more tax dollars are wasted on the trials, even then the cost of the trials outweigh any benefit to be gained by avoiding licensing costs

It means that the acquisition price is lower over time because of increased competition, and that there is less likelihood of corruption. It's the corruption aspect that was specifically cited in the law that set out the tendering process.

finding Linux support people that are cheap (like windows support people) is next to impossible

This judgment was about the procurement process in this context, but it has far-reaching implications. It means that the government has to follow the rules that they laid down for public tenders, and not (1) try to subvert the process, and (2) lie about it afterwords. If you read one of the other articles on the french web page, you'll see that it's the Parti Quebecois that is trying to get the government to be more user-friendly with our data and our tax dollars, while Jean Charest' Liberals don't want to know shit

Then again, Jean Charest is such a lying fuck it's incredible. I remember talking to reporters and saying "people actually believe this guy?" and the response back was uniform "he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time". We saw it with the whole demerger thing. Make a promise to do the right thing, then lie lie lie while you fuck everyone over.

Then again, what do you want from a former Mulroney Conservative. There are so many anglos in Montreal who vote PQ now in provincial elections because there's no way that they can trust him again.

We are so pissed off at Charest. I've voted PQ in several elections (and I'm one of the few people who led public protests against both bill 101 and meech lake and got bomb threats and police harassment over it way back when. My federalist credentials are better than the sheeples who did nothing, or left, or refused to learn french - wtf is up with that? You live in Quebec, show a bit of respect for your neighbors, learn some french, tabernak).

Funny thing - my sister, who can't hold a conversation in french if her life depended on it, voted PQ too - we're all sick and tired of the fear-mongering "don't vote for them it will destroy Canada" bullshit.

Canada is about workable compromises. You can't ask the other person to understand your side if you won't try to understand theirs.

I'm not from Quebec, but I think I know Quebec politics well enough to say that the PQ is a single-issue party. Why would you vote for them if you disagree (enough to get militant) with them on that one issue?

Yes they take positions on other issues, but their focus is only on one. Or two, if you consider language policy and separatism to be separate issues.

Quebec will never separate. If you start with that as both a premise AND a goal, then it's all good. As a premise, because it removes the fear of "what if Quebec separates", and as a goal because there are times that Quebec, like any other province, has a grievance that has to be addressed rather than just ignored.

On the PQ - They've actually come a long way. Rene Levesque said it best, that perhaps Canada was a "beau risque" - a good risk. They're also willing to work with people who disagree with the

and if you guys had candidates here id vote for you and ive heard this before its LIKE canada is crying for a new party, one thats for people not stuffy suits that are selling off our values , country and civil rights

"he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time".

Same thing in America. We have to rely on a comedian to catch our politicians contradicting themselves.

But then we have a overly large portion of the population who ignore the exposed lie precisely because it was reported by a comedian (especially when they can also be labeled a "liberal" or "redneck"), ignorant of the fact that the Fool has often been the only reliable source freely able to deliver the truth. The end result is often that we gain little more than oversimplified humor wrapped in ratings-driven low-brow shtick.

Out of curiosity, which lie revealing comedian would you label as "redneck"? I was referring specifically to Jon Stewart, who can in no way be described as a redneck. The only conservative (which generally goes with redneck) political comedian that comes to mind is Dennis Miller, I don't think he fits the redneck label either.

The RFP specified "Windows Vista license", which by definition excluded anybody who wanted to submit a proposal desktop OS replacement plan based on Linux. What Savoir-Faire Linux won is, basically (paraphrased, read the judgement) the right to submit a proposal to upgrade Windows desktop to Linux.

Wrong. The government is required by law to consider all functional equivalents. The government's own studies show that linux is as good as, and often better, than Windows.

By specifying Windows Vista, MS-Office, and Visio, rather than "products that provide the following functionality...", they broke the law. Then they tried to cover it up, Worse, they claimed it was a "software upgrade" when it in fact included the purchase of new computers as well.

Translated, it means "Article 12.4 requires that an in-depth, documented study be done, can you send a copy of the study to me?" There was no study done before deciding what to buy, and the government tried to cover up that they didn't follow the law.

The government, under threat of legal action, agreed to meet with Beraud, but refused to give the specifications, nor the study that was requied to be done (because neither existed).

Beraud then offered [56] an outside expert to help them do the study that they were required to do by law anyway (and hadn't done) during the procurement process.

Para 150 (page 29), quoting para 116 of Judge Silcoff in Alstrom "... the court notes that the study, to be in conformity with the law, must not only be in depth but also documented. If th STM (the city transit commission) wants to use an exception provided by law (to this requirement), they must document their research and conclusions.. before making their decision."

This is the law for all procurements exceeding $25,000.00 (para 152, page 29).

Para 153 (page 30) shows that there was no study done - quite the contrary.

Para 156 (page 31) - back in 2005 the Regie had put out a policy saying that when it came time to renew software in 2006-2007, open-source would be considered.

The smoking gun: para 157: (my translation) "I'd like an expert on open source software from CGI to comment on the following reply that we have made to a promoter of linux/openoffice. Are these valid arguments? What are the weak points that the promoter will attack and how will he do it?"

In other words, "We didn't do the study required by law, and we want to cover our asses - tell us where we fucked up."

It blew up in their face: para 160 (page 32) : "I believed that the objective was to compare the two solutions. Instead, it's a request to confirm that Linux-OO is no good. That would be a bit paradoxical for (us) to make such a statement when we are publicly stating the exact opposite ourselves."

I'm sorry, but in the real world, Linux simply can't replace Windows in a lot of cases. I didn't bother to RTFA, its pointless on this sort of discussion on slashdot, no one is rational here when it comes to Linux.

This case is about the right to make an official proposal. If you don't bother to RTFA, don't bother to spew your ignorant opinions either. If the company who sued for the right to actually make the proposal can't make a proposal that meets the needs, then the proposal will be rejected.

Regardless to how much you just 'say' to the contrary, people know and are comfortable with Windows, Linux desktops don't act or feel the same and that costs a lot of man hours. Not for people like you who can transition to a new OS rather easy, but for all the low level grunts who don't 'know how to use computers', but 'remember the series of clicks' to get their job done.

The cost of a Windows license, even for a retail copy of Win7 Ultimate is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other costs associated with a user....and yet you point them out mostly in the case of OSS.

Quebec has a long history of failing to put contracts to tender properly. In particular, the construction industry has long been involved in the corruption of government officials to win contracts on dubious grounds. It's part of the reason that the infrastructure is so bad. I doubt that corruption was involved in this case however; I think it comes more from the fact that a large slice of the public doesn't realize that non-Microsoft operating systems exist.

Canadian Federal or Provincial Governments are CYA [wikipedia.org] activists.

Not activists. Extremists.

Why they're afraid to make decisions? Because they don't like to be disturbed while they're sleeping in their office, by their boss saying "Can you explain that to me dumbass? What is this Lunix thing?"

What it yells is that people can't understand it if it isn't Microsoft Windows and isn't Microsoft Office. There was a time when the choices were IBM's DOS and Microsoft's DOS; Word Perfect and whatever; Lotus 123 and whatever. But that market-scape has changed and nothing else is within the realm of consideration. It is not just F/OSS that is to be denied but anything that isn't Microsoft.

Let's look at it another way. If the product were ball bearings and there was only one maker of ball bearings, that

"Let's look at it another way. If the product were ball bearings and there was only one maker of ball bearings, that would be the only brand that would get consideration."

And then it would be illegal for a public procurement. If they need ball bearings, then they'll have to ask for "ball bearings" not for "ACME ball bearings", disregarding how many competitors there are in the market.

But then, let's look at it another way. I bet that there was a time when there was no black judges in Canada, (or in the US

Once again, not excusing what has been going on, just saying that is a very likely reason. Never attribute to malice what ignorance or sloth could result. Technically, there not being an alternative to Windows makes it illegal for many governments to procure. There once was OS/2 but that is no longer. I imagine an exception has been made for all these years, but someone should be called to the floor over the matter and then require Microsoft, just as was required for Intel, to allow a competitor to use

Correction to the article text: Savoir-Faire Linux is a commercial Linux service provider (an integrator), not an "activist". Look them up on the web. They sued the government because buying Windows specifically without considering Free software options was witholding them business.

FACIL, which also sued the government for the same reason in a different case, *is* an advocacy non-profit organization, somewhat akin to APRIL or the FSF.

I did some government biding some time ago. It was such a joke, they would request bids for "150 Dell Latitude D830's to be delivered over a 12 month period" The thing was, Dell was bidding and the government would through out anything that was not a Dell Latitude D830. So No comparable systems and no way to beat Dell's bid. As far as I was concerned it was a rigged bid and most of them went that way.

So, For the government to request bids on "Windows Vista" and to ignore all other desktop OS's is the same thing as far as I am concerned.

Now, the real question is: Was the bid written so that they could only get a bid from who they wanted or was it written that way because the guy in charge listened to the sales person, decided that was what he needed, and then wrote a bid because it was required that they take bids?

I did some government biding some time ago. It was such a joke, they would request bids for "150 Dell Latitude D830's to be delivered over a 12 month period" The thing was, Dell was bidding and the government would through out anything that was not a Dell Latitude D830. So No comparable systems and no way to beat Dell's bid. As far as I was concerned it was a rigged bid and most of them went that way.

So, For the government to request bids on "Windows Vista" and to ignore all other desktop OS's is the same thing as far as I am concerned.

I disagree - there is the probability that there already exists an infrastructure built around Windows desktops, including systems management and applications. In such a case, does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure (or replace the existing infrastructure altogether, with all the costs associated with that)?

I disagree - there is the probability that there already exists an infrastructure built around Windows desktops, including systems management and applications. In such a case, does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure (or replace the existing infrastructure altogether, with all the costs associated with that)?

The answer is YES! The government is required to consider all competing bids. It's not just a good idea, it's the law and for good reason. It helps stop corruption when doling out taxpayer's money. IF it can be shown that a competing bid is more expensive for the same value, then of course they are quite able to reject the bid. However, disallowing competing bids is extremely bad because you don't know what the cost will be, or what the issues are -- because nobody has made a bid! Given that the capital cost for the average Linux distribution is zero, there should be plenty of money left over for other expenditures required to integrate into the existing infrastructure. In fact, from a reputable integrator, this (along with training and support of course) should be the vast majority of the cost.

So every time the government needs to replace a number of desktops, it also has to consider replacing the entire IT infrastructure?

No; read the case. The government can have specific constraints in its bid if it has a documented study showing why those are reasonable and necessary constraints. It has to consider replacing the entire IT infrastructure every five years or so (in case the situation changes -- new versions of Windows, new versions of Linux distros etc.), and based on the results of that, it can do what was recommended with regard to replacing desktops in the interim.

This judgement is that the government must at the very least consider the alternatives like Linux in an "appel d'offres", a bid request, and evaluate if it is the better, cheaper alternative. Instead the government agency in question had purposefully derided and torpedoed the Linux option and made the bid request essentially "Microsoft product only", which the judge declared was illegal.

The judge didn't force the government to go with Linux, and indeed in many situations it would not make sense economically

Sure the thing with the Dells is a rigged Bid, no question there. Likely whoever was in charge of the bidding didn't know what the hell he was doing, and if was ever brought to task would be in deep crap. Or he was getting a kickback from Dell, which is doubtful... they are too cheap:) jk.

However to say having a requirement for Vista falls into the same category is foolish. In an enterprise environment they will have many requirements that must me met, and many of them, such as the choice of

Yes because all our software licences we currently own are linux compatible. As is all our server software. All our web is hosted on linux. Also all all IT staff all know Linux, and also know how to support it which is pointless anyway as all the users know how to use Linux, as well as all the Linux equivalent office software.

Sarcasm.

Heck some of the negative airspace here can barely use Windows. Giving them Linux would be akin to giving a caveman a cellphone. Ook Ook Ah Ah Ah!

...they rejected a bid submission for upgrading their XP machines to Vista which didn't actually successfully meet their requirement that the OS in question be the one they asked for?

I'm not trying to push anyone's buttons, but what if the proposal was to upgrade their linux servers with modern systems running linux. If a vendor came along and part of that proposal included a server running Windows Server 2008 and they rejected that proposal because it didn't meet their requirements, would the OSS communit

That's fine in the abstract, but in the real world, it doesn't always hold up, particularly when what a new OS needs to accomplish is often something as mundane as "run the apps we've already spent money on" or "be compatible with the third party vendor software that we don't have (or want) an alternative to", such as enterprise small format and large format printers.

I've had this discussion with people before who migrated to Vista too soon who wanted drivers for $60,000 devices. In a couple of cases, I ha

If a vendor came along and part of that proposal included a server running Windows Server 2008 and they rejected that proposal because it didn't meet their requirements, would the OSS community be up in arms then?

Maybe. For example, if the requirement was to upgrade all RHEL to all bids for the next RHEL version with trademarks in place, then yes. Up in arms. If requirement was upgrade to any GNU/Linux: Novell, RHEL, Oracle (he he he), Ubuntu, CentOs with support of local firm, then no. The concept is competition. Yes, I understand the comparison in this context doesn't fit perfectly, but any time I can be unfair to a corporation, I'll jump at it.

Flying a bid to revamp the electricity in one of our old buildings using DeWalt tools would be... inappropriate. It's incompetence if accidental, illegal if collusion occurred (this is an example, I only wish I got bribed with power tools).

This is subject to some caveats, since sometimes only one company makes the tool you want -- but generally that's means you reject other bids quickly/there are no other bids. Not that you get to circumven

When one of the tasks to be accomplished is "not throw away the investment we've already made in our accounting package" or "maintain compatibility with third party vendor apps we have no control over" or "ensure we have continued support for drivers for expensive hardware we already purchased", then the OS isn't merely a tool. It's a platform.

Or to look at it another way, if your electrical company needed to re-purchase a supply of bolts via a bidding process, the fact that the tools you have are all metr

In a lengthy ruling of about forty pages, the magistrate sided completely with the company Savoir-Faire Linux (SFL), who brought this action against the RRQ and the Centre de services partagés du Québec

I would hope that any major upgrade in government would involve at least some degree of systems analysis. And any decent systems analyst is going to take differences in software packages into account (along with many other factors)--not just price.

If the government of Quebec wants to upgrade their AutoCad 2000 license to AutoCad 2010 licenses, do they have to accept bids from people who want to sell them the free software program "Bricscad" running under Wine?

Close, but no cookie. It means the government has to describe the need they need to fill, instead of dictating a specific product, in their RFP. Any bidder that can meet these needs can submit a proposal. It's common sense, really.

The government's analysis of the bid would, yes. Exactly as it would when upgrading to a new Microsoft OS, or when replacing a mainframe. That's pretty much procurement basics 101.

I've got no problem with organisations using Windows (etc.) if it's the right decision for them, and I don't subscribe to the notion that Windows is inherently awful or whatnot. But it's ridiculous that a government (of all things) is prepared to spend vast sums of money on a product without even considering a single alternative.

In fact, the RFP was for an upgrade from Office 2000 and Win XP to Vista and 2007. It can be argued that since a complete conversion of the Office docs is warranted OOo is an equivalent to Office 2007, and that is the opinion of the judge.

translated quote: "we are faced with a migration, a complete renewal of the IT environment [...]such an important change cannot be considered an upgrade"

"If the government of Quebec wants to upgrade their AutoCad 2000 license to AutoCad 2010 licenses, do they have to accept bids from people who want to sell them the free software program "Bricscad" running under Wine?"

Of course not, and the sentence says no otherwise.

It's simply that there's no thing as "upgrading AutoCad 2000 to AutoCad 2010". It needs to be a "public procurement for an overhaul of Computer Assisted Design software at the Quebecois Regional Government".

In fact, the rules for winning contracts are very clear. Lowest price for a qualified submission, or highest score divided by price submission.

But as you say, there is still corruption, so it is still unlikely a small business as Savoir Faire Linux may win a contract to replace the OS on 2500 workstations in government offices... Except if they can give a brown envelope full of cash to some influential-enough person...